Any books portraying capitalism in a positive light?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Depends on what you mean by "capitalism." There are books that depict Federation citizens as engaging in private trade and using Federation currency, certainly. But I'm not aware of any Star Trek books that are specifically about Federation economics, and I think it's safe to say that Star Trek doesn't endorse the idea of unregulated capitalism.
Some TOS books talk about in passing about wages and so forth - Traitors Wind springs to mind, but just as something everyday. I was never sure whether they were assuming that capatlism was in play during that era or not - or whether this was ever specifically confirmed one way or the other in any episode(from "trouble with tribbles" I assume starfleet officers were given something resembling money).
I suppose the DS9 book "The 32nd Rule" skirts around the edges of it - but it tends to focus more on the character of Quark and ferengi in general rather then on capitalism itself. it is also among the best DS9 books going.
The book that goes into capitalism the most is probably TNG's Debtor's Planet, where it's treated by everyone on the federation side (save their special ambassador) as a curiosity of the past.
I suppose the DS9 book "The 32nd Rule" skirts around the edges of it - but it tends to focus more on the character of Quark and ferengi in general rather then on capitalism itself. it is also among the best DS9 books going.
The book that goes into capitalism the most is probably TNG's Debtor's Planet, where it's treated by everyone on the federation side (save their special ambassador) as a curiosity of the past.
The Rules of Acquisition?
There was the Ferengi story in 'Seven deadly sins' although that was more about the ethics and ramifications of the arms trade.
Capitalism has been caught out and discredited hasn't it ? While it is now widely viewed as exploitative and at the least wildly unfair, it's lucky for capitalism that no-one has come up with a viable alternative yet.
There are not likely to be any particularly sympathetic portrayals in the near future...
There are not likely to be any particularly sympathetic portrayals in the near future...
TNG in particular said that humanity had "moved beyond" money as a motivating factor, DS9 said that Earth had abandoned "incentives-based economics". Given that the books have to tow the show's line, the general rule is that the authors avoid using economics or capitalism directly when talking about the Federation and humanity in particular.
Also, it's not like that lends itself naturally to exciting Star Trek adventures.
When I sit down to plot another thrilling voyage where no one has gone before, figuring out how to positively portray capitalism isn't exactly the first thing to comes to mind.
"Damnit, Jim, I'm doctor, not a job creator!"
There was the TNG Novel Debtor's Planet, where Ralph Offenhouse (from "The Neutral Zone") serves as the Federation ambassador to the Ferengi.
In the novels on the Bacco Administration, Ralph is her Secretary of Commerce, I believe.
The fact that a man who was a wealthy capitalist in a former life has such a positive contribution to the Federation--in the way in which he is--I think, has a positive message. While "the economics of the future are somewhat different", the fact that Offenhouse's skills of business can still be put to effective use says something--that while said economics are different in their manefestation, the principles are still more or less present, albeit in a different form.
Instead of "greed for money," we have "greed for life...for love--knowledge".
In the novels on the Bacco Administration, Ralph is her Secretary of Commerce, I believe.
The fact that a man who was a wealthy capitalist in a former life has such a positive contribution to the Federation--in the way in which he is--I think, has a positive message. While "the economics of the future are somewhat different", the fact that Offenhouse's skills of business can still be put to effective use says something--that while said economics are different in their manefestation, the principles are still more or less present, albeit in a different form.
Instead of "greed for money," we have "greed for life...for love--knowledge".
^A system which rewards such business skills. Somehow, I sincerely doubt a socialist/communist/fascist/generally-tyrannical system would allow for a positive contribution.
And who in your esteemed opinion would that be then?
Has it been discredited? I think you assume that capitalism has a singular identity (and that the current popular economic models have failed). 'Capitalism' has existed for over five centuries and has never gone away. It has evolved many times, with the result being that there are different economic systems within 'capitalism', in which one particular form has been shown to not be able to rely on massive lending without chance of paying back. However the overall idea and extent of capitalism has not been discredited (despite what columnists might argue), it cannot be (since, as you say, there is no viable alternative - therefore society keeps putting credit into capitalism's current models, failed or evolving).
Hardly. The Federation's economy, unlike capitalism, is not about "getting ahead" of other people, or inequality. It's not about hierarchy.
No doubt Offenhouse's ambition played a role in his successes in both eras -- but it's far more likely that Offenhouse had to develop a completely new set of skills to become a successful Federation civil servant, skills not based upon exploitation. The principles would necessarily be remarkably different, and Offenhouse would have had to have fundamentally changed his ways to succeed in the Federation.
Any economic system that produces homelessness, starvation, poverty, and extreme inequality should be seen as discredited -- especially in the world of Star Trek.
Point being?
Humans in Trek are probably not using communism in the first place - plus that system was also abused by those in power which produced heavy inequality, abused labor, and was one of the reasons why it failed.
More along the lines that Federation economy is resource based (or an evolved version of it).
I have 0 respect for the way capitalism worked or is working and hope Trek novels don't give credence to it.
Humans in Trek are probably not using communism in the first place - plus that system was also abused by those in power which produced heavy inequality, abused labor, and was one of the reasons why it failed.
More along the lines that Federation economy is resource based (or an evolved version of it).
I have 0 respect for the way capitalism worked or is working and hope Trek novels don't give credence to it.
You are assuming that an economic system is the root cause of those situations, not the result of other sociological factors that have conditional human economics - from the ancient world to the present-day. These ranging from the tribal/familial genetic-social construct to the biological formulation of humanity that produces individuals with wildly different capacities & abilities, many of whom are inequal, to geography itself (the postcode lottery) which ensures inequality not from economics, but from other factors such as the chances of being subject to natural disaster or disease.
I don't think any economic situation is the sole (or sometimes predominant) producer of these situations. Each is the result of other factors as much as perpeptuating those factors. The different economic forms or systems - slave-based, capitalistic, feudal, socialist, communist, charitable - enhanced and suppressed the various elements of the natural inequality in humankind, by favouring solutions to some social ills and inequalities over others. They are not the absolutue cause of the inequalitiy, they are the encodement of who we are.
Of course the economic ideas hinted at in Trek (at least TNG-onwards Trek) are utopian. However, there is a reason 'utopia' means 'nowhere' as well as 'good place'. Thomas More coined the phrase as well as writing the first identifiable utopia. His Utopia is a form of the saved world, a kind of post-grace world or prefiguration of heaven. It is world where for him writing in the early-sixteenth century had none of the ills of the real world.
Modern humanist utopias, such as Star Trek, are built upon other philosophical conceits - that technology will make us better, or total/restricted moral relativism, or total equality, such as was driving force behind the early twentieth century utopian embrace of socialism seen politically (and in artistic movements like the 1920s Russian constructivism such as Tatlin's Tower) - have presented other heavenly depictions, but equally they deny the inbuilt problems that make us human.
Utopias cannot exist (at least in this world) because they deny what, for example, the Christianity of More would classify our fallenness and which someone like Dawkins calls our individually-genetic and culturally-memetic selfishness.
Of course, though I can't help but think of pre-TNG fiction, such as The Final Reflection, which certainly depicted capitalism, with only limited critique of its effects, and the new Trek film, which suggested a residual capitalist world too.
Last edited:
You're seriously lumping those together with a straight face?
To be fair, that would mean either inventing a new economic system out of whole cloth (since those problems haven't been dealt with in the real world) or handwaving/ignoring the issue almost entirely (as Trek tends to do and should IMO).
Similar threads
